JB/047/148/001

Click Here To Edit

16 June 1805
Evidence

Cases are not wanting in which Trial by Jury Jury Trial, were though Jurymen were all Angels, ought not to be employed.
Of this number are the cases

1. Where the demands on both sides or on either side are so numerous
and so complicated, that no in the course of one sitting (for if
sittings be multiplied added to sittings, the Jurors mixing with the world in the intervals
the characteristic virtue of the Jury species of judicature evaporates) that in the
course of one sitting no rational decision can be formed.

2. Where by consign in the course of those previous discussions
which will always be necessary, the cause being ripe for decision,
a decision is accordingly pronounced upon it by the examining Judge and why
should it not be pronounced, and both parties are so far satisfied with
that decision as not to wish for any ulterior inquiry before a Jury?
In such case of a Jury trial even forced upon them, what end which of all the ends of justice
would be served by it.

To In all penal causes of the in degree of importance, (judging by
the magnitude of the appointed punishment), not rising above the highest
to which Summary procedure has hitherto been applied, there would
be no innovation at least, in extending it. But because there
would not be any innovation, if it certainly follows not that there would
be sufficient reason: that would presume to be ascertained by from a
consideration of each separate case.

In causes not penal there could be no objection to the excluding
without Jury of Summary procedure in the first instance to those of the very highest class in the end or importance.
Causes of the very highest importance are actually tried in this
without Jury though in a mode as opposite as possible to summary
in existing practice.

Here too if the parties are both satisfied with the decision furnished by the expeditious and
unexpensive mode of procedure, why force upon them any other.

Should either party be dissatisfied with it, and reclaim the
benefit of Trial by Jury, then surely will it be true enough for him to
have it. That even thus should a male-fide litigant have the power
of employment profiting by it if employed for the mere purpose of vexation and delay. Sufficient Security
being found for eventual restitution ad integrum by the party in whose favour
the provisional decision had been pronounced, confidence sufficient might heavily be reposed in the provisional Judge, (or he ought not to fill the office),
for the giving provisional execution to his judgment,
for the suffering that decision to be provisionally carried into effect.(a)

(a) Not even this slight and guarded degree of confidence is absurdly if not wickedly d refused were to the
highest ordinary Courts: and from herein came the enormous and scandalous
abuse of Writs of Appeals to the House of Lords and to different detachments of the 12 Judges for the mere purpose of delay. By A grain of common sense, vitrified by any the faintest spark of the
genuine pure love of justice, this abuse not to speak of so many others, might be compleatly wiped away?
But in what legal breast is any such that patrons conjunction ever to be found?

Identifier: | JB/047/148/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 47.
Date_1	1805-06-16	Marginal Summary Numbering	2-8
Box	047	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	148	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d5* / e2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	1800
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1800
Notes public		ID Number	15016
Box Contents